Forums Register login What's New?
California's water problem
?

Is the California drought a direct result of climate change?

  1. Well most climate scientists agree so yes

    3 vote(s)
    15.8%

  2. Wild guess yes

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%

  3. Yes you'd have to be an idiot to think it's not

    3 vote(s)
    15.8%

  4. No, climate change hasn't had anything to do with it

    1 vote(s)
    5.3%

  5. No there is not enough data to support this claim

    7 vote(s)
    36.8%

  6. No, Climate change is a hoax

    1 vote(s)
    5.3%

  7. Wild guess No

    4 vote(s)
    21.1%
Page 6 of 14
  1. I don't know. Maybe nothing as of now but whenever the world's oil supply starts running low they have the money to develop alternative sources. They won't do it until they can see a profit in it.l
  2. Exxon and all the oil (energy) companies have invested in other resources for years. They have bought and sold Reliance Electric a manufacturer of motors and drives, have investments in fuel cell technology etc. I woul be surprised if they are funding fusion research (speculation).
    They know better than any of us the future of oil. They will milk it for all its worth but they aren't in the business of going out of business and will try to leverage their position to be the leader in oil's successor.
    LSUDad and LSUpride123 like this.
  3. I wasn't talking about what Exxon decides or thinks. I'm talking about Exxon's market disappearing or its source material disappearing. The factors will force Exxon into a down-spiral that will increasingly be apparent. You know, in the early 20th Century, there were many fine and prosperous saddle-makers, then oil came along and their market disappeared. There was a booming 18th century demand for sperm whale oil but then the source product became depleted. Supply and demand, amigo. Peak Oil means that Exxon will have a peak profitability that matches it.

    I'm missing nothing. What the hell are you imagining? How and why should we force other nations to do anything? This isn't a martial problem and requires no warfare. Can right-winger conceive of anything beside warfare to solve a friggin' problem?

    We do it the way we have done everything else since we became a Superpower. We influence, persuade, bribe, shame, praise, make profitable arrangements, and use our powerful economic leverage. We shower them with Spielberg, CNN, Beiber, Hollywood in all forms. When shower them with American marketing, productivity, work ethic, and generosity. More and more earthlings want to be like America . . . rich, safe, free, confident, happy and successful. The more they want to be like us, the more they behave like us. You have already seen it in Europe, the Pacific, and the Western Hemisphere. Asia and Africa will take more time but it is inevitable.

    "If you sit by the river long enough, the body of your enemy will come floating by." -- Sun Tsu​

    Uhhh, OK.

    You are so confused.

    Matter is made from fossil fuels? Are you serious? We make things out of thin air? Who suggested that? Renewable technology is made with fossil fuels? What in the world does that mean?

    I have a very different idea of who is in fantasyland.
  4. So how much have they invested in non-petroleum technology? I'm sure they have diversified, but how much of their $45 billion annual profit goes to green energy?
  5. Until you folks are able to understand the difference between acceleration and velocity, you are gonna struggle with this one.
  6. Like I said Red. If it is such a big issue for humanity why on Earth aren't we forcing a change???
  7. Let me repeat myself.

    1. We can't even convince many of your ideology to even accept that there IS a problem. Many countries have no capacity to offer much help, if they do believe and agree.

    2. What gives us the right to "force" measures to address AGW upon anybody else? Why would we even want to?

    3. We have always been more successful at using persuasion, economic leverage, incentives, etc. and lead from the front. It is impossible to herd cats. But if you have a fish, they will all follow you.​
    Winston1 likes this.
  8. If it takes as long to change the perception of climate change as it has to deal with Iran then there is zero point.

    Like I said earlier. NASA said rapid climate change can happen within 10 years. There is no going back from that.

    What gives us the right to not allow Iran to have a nuke?What gives us the right to bomb Lybia? What gave us the right to get Osama from Packistan?
    Seems like we do a fine job of determining what ever it is we plan on doing.
  9. Would be a shame to allow our planet to die simply because we didn't want to step on toes.

    Either the science is right or it's not. I would think it should be a huge deal if it is as bad as everyone says. I
  10. We have no right, that is what pisses Iran off. We did not stop Israel, Pakistan, India, or North Korea and we can't stop Iran or anybody else that is determined to make one.

    Actually we were supporting NATO allies on that one.

    9/11.
(You have insufficient privileges to reply here.)
Page 6 of 14